On Tue, 2025-10-14 at 19:38 +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 at 16:56, Naresh Kamboju naresh.kamboju@linaro.org wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 at 20:38, Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.12.53 release. There are 262 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please let me know.
Responses should be made by Wed, 15 Oct 2025 14:42:41 +0000. Anything received after that time might be too late.
The whole patch series can be found in one patch at: https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v6.x/stable-review/patch-6.12.53-rc1... or in the git tree and branch at: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux- stable-rc.git linux-6.12.y and the diffstat can be found below.
thanks,
greg k-h
The S390 defconfig builds failed on the Linux stable-rc 6.12.53-rc1 and 6.6.112-rc1 tag build due to following build warnings / errors with gcc and clang toolchains.
Also seen on 6.6.112-rc1.
- s390, build
- clang-21-defconfig - clang-nightly-defconfig - clang-nightly-lkftconfig-hardening - clang-nightly-lkftconfig-lto-full - clang-nightly-lkftconfig-lto-thing - gcc-14-allmodconfig - gcc-14-defconfig - gcc-14-lkftconfig-hardening - gcc-8-defconfig-fe40093d - gcc-8-lkftconfig-hardening - korg-clang-21-lkftconfig-hardening - korg-clang-21-lkftconfig-lto-full - korg-clang-21-lkftconfig-lto-thing
First seen on 6.12.53-rc1 Good: v6.12.52 Bad: 6.12.53-rc1 also seen on 6.6.112-rc1
Regression Analysis:
- New regression? yes
- Reproducibility? yes
Build regressions: arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:1813:49: error: 'struct bpf_jit' has no member named 'frame_off'
Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing lkft@linaro.org
# Build error arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c: In function 'bpf_jit_insn': arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:1813:49: error: 'struct bpf_jit' has no member named 'frame_off' 1813 | _EMIT6(0xd203f000 | (jit->frame_off
| ^~ arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:211:55: note: in definition of macro '_EMIT6' 211 | *(u32 *) (jit->prg_buf + jit->prg) = (op1); \ | ^~~ include/linux/stddef.h:16:33: error: invalid use of undefined type 'struct prog_frame' 16 | #define offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER) __builtin_offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:211:55: note: in definition of macro '_EMIT6' 211 | *(u32 *) (jit->prg_buf + jit->prg) = (op1); \ | ^~~ arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:1814:46: note: in expansion of macro 'offsetof' 1814 | offsetof(struct prog_frame, | ^~~~~~~~ include/linux/stddef.h:16:33: error: invalid use of undefined type 'struct prog_frame' 16 | #define offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER) __builtin_offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:212:59: note: in definition of macro '_EMIT6' 212 | *(u16 *) (jit->prg_buf + jit->prg + 4) = (op2); \ | ^~~ arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:1816:41: note: in expansion of macro 'offsetof' 1816 | 0xf000 | offsetof(struct prog_frame, | ^~~~~~~~ arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c: In function '__arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline': include/linux/stddef.h:16:33: error: invalid use of undefined type 'struct prog_frame' 16 | #define offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER) __builtin_offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:212:59: note: in definition of macro '_EMIT6' 212 | *(u16 *) (jit->prg_buf + jit->prg + 4) = (op2); \ | ^~~ arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:2813:33: note: in expansion of macro 'offsetof' 2813 | 0xf000 | offsetof(struct prog_frame, tail_call_cnt)); | ^~~~~~~~ make[5]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:229: arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.o] Error 1
The git blame is pointing to, $ git blame -L 1813 arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c 162513d7d81487 (Ilya Leoshkevich) _EMIT6(0xd203f000 | (jit-
frame_off +
Commit pointing to, s390/bpf: Write back tail call counter for BPF_PSEUDO_CALL [ Upstream commit c861a6b147137d10b5ff88a2c492ba376cd1b8b0 ]
Anders bisected reported regressions and also suggested the missing patches.
Ilya Leoshkevich, Is it a good idea to backport / cherry pick these two patches on the 6.12 branch ?
b2268d550d20 ("s390/bpf: Centralize frame offset calculations") e26d523edf2a ("s390/bpf: Describe the frame using a struct instead of constants")
Thank you for the report and the investigation!
I think it would be a good idea to backport these. Both are NFC changes that went into v6.17 and there were no complaints.
For v6.6 we also need this one (also NFC):
67aed27bcd46 ("s390/bpf: Change seen_reg to a mask")
## Build
- kernel: 6.12.53-rc1
- git:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
- git commit: 7e50c0945b4ab1d4019f9905f6cf5350082c6a84
- git describe: v6.12.52-263-g7e50c0945b4a
- test details:
https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-linux-6.12.y/build/v6.12....
## Test Regressions (compared to v6.12.50-47-gf7ad21173a19)
- s390, build
- clang-21-defconfig - clang-nightly-defconfig - clang-nightly-lkftconfig-hardening - clang-nightly-lkftconfig-lto-full - clang-nightly-lkftconfig-lto-thing - gcc-14-allmodconfig - gcc-14-defconfig - gcc-14-lkftconfig-hardening - gcc-8-defconfig-fe40093d - gcc-8-lkftconfig-hardening - korg-clang-21-lkftconfig-hardening - korg-clang-21-lkftconfig-lto-full - korg-clang-21-lkftconfig-lto-thing
- Naresh